BENGALURU: In the garb of dissent being the essence of democracy, speeches should not malign the character of any person unless it is borne out by facts, the Karnataka High Court has said.
Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation, rejecting a petition filed by Karkala BJP MLA V Sunil Kumar, questioning an order passed by a trial court taking cognisance of the offence of defamatory statements made by him against Sri Ram Sene president Pramod Muthalik during the Karnataka Assembly elections held in May 2023.
“It is no doubt true that dissent is the essence of democracy. But that would not mean that the maker of a statement could get away with any statement in the garb of it being made during an election rally or in the post-election rally.
Making a speech in public is a speech made against the said person which would come to be known to each and everyone. In this digital age, anything spoken does not remain with the person who speaks it. It is circulated within no time. The speeches should not malign the character of any person unless it is borne out by facts. The subject crime has to be tried, and trial is inevitable,” the court noted.
A trial court in Bengaluru passed the order on March 20, 2024, taking cognisance and issuing a summons under Section 499 of the IPC and punishable under Section 500 of the IPC.
Muthalik filed a private complaint before the trial court stating that his reputation built over 40 years has been dented by Sunil Kumar, who contested against him.
After the election results on May 13, 2023, Sunil Kumar, in a public function at Bandimutt bus stand in Karkala, made false allegations against Muthalik, the complaint stated.
Sunil Kumar’s counsel argued that during election rallies, contesting candidates should become deaf to such statements or become thick-skinned. They should not get touchy about statements uttered during election rallies, he said.
Relying on a verdict of the apex court in the case of R Rajagopal, the counsel argued that the Supreme Court holds that in a democratic society, those who hold office in the government and who are responsible for public administration must always be open to criticism. However, the court said the said judgment would be of no aid to the petitioner.